ML20210Q531
| ML20210Q531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/20/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Colvin J NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| References | |
| FRN-62FR8885, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 NUDOCS 9709020019 | |
| Download: ML20210Q531 (2) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DA 4
UNITED STATES t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2065H001 e
August 20, 1997 CHAl* MAN Mr. Joe F. Colvin, President and Chief Executive Officer Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 l Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20006-3708
Dear Mr. Colvin:
I am writing in response to your letter dated July 28,1937, informing me that NEl has filed, with the Office of the Secretary, a petition for reconsideration of the NRC's FY 1997 final fee rule. You indicated that NEl filed the petition because NEl does not believe that the final rule appropriately addresses the agency's responsibilities under Federal law and NRC regulation.
Let me assure you at the outset that I, as well as my fellow Commissioners, are very sensitive to your concem about the increase in all annual fees for FY 1997. We are committed to the effective use of our increasingly limited resources and ccatinually seek ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our programs as a means of controlling operating costs without compromising safety and, therefore, keeping fees billed to licensees as low as practicable. We believe that
< FY 1997 budget, on which the final annual fees are based, reflects this approach. For example, the total amount of the budget authority
($462.3 million) to be collected from fees for FY 1997 is identical to the amount for FY 1996.
As you know, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its FY 1997 budget authority less the amount appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund and the General Fund, through the assessment of fees. The final fees which became effective July 28,1997, are thosa necessary to ensure that NRC complies with the requirements of OBRA-90 to collect approximately 100 percent of its budget authority.
O{(;
As part of its Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining initiative, the Commission considered issues associated with fees After evaluation and comments from stakeholders, the Commission concluded that in order to make annual feen more fair and equitable for all NRC licensees, the Commission must reevaluate whether certain NRC activities should be removed from the fee base and instead funded from nori fee-based appropriations or i
\\
,7}**
9709020019 9NO820 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
s, 1 f 2.
separate appropriations, To this end, the Commission has requested the staff to prepare an update to the February 1994 report that was sent to Congress on this matter. Tnis reoort update will consider changes that have occurred since the Comt... r%n issued the 1994 report to Congress and will be included in our decisionmaking on our :Y 1999 budget.
-The Office of the Secretary will be responding directly to NEl conce oing your petition for reconsideration on the FY 1997 final fee rule.
Sincerely, J
6-W
e hl)(ll.AR- (%(RGV lh511TUll'
_ Joe F. Colvin
/ July 28,1997 y --
I'
' Chairman Shirley A. Jackson g [?g,
'-Su U. S/ Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Alail Stop O 16 G15 One White Flint North-j'{
?
11555 Ro6kville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 2738_
SUBJECT:
Petition for Reconsideration of Final Rule M-~
Revision of Fee Schedules: 100% Fee Recovery, FY1997 02 Fed. Reg. 29194, May 29,1997
Dear Chairnian Jackson:
LI am writing to inform you that the nuclear industry filed today with the Secretary L of the Commission a petition for reconsideration of the NRC's FY97 annual fee rule.-
NEI does not believe that the NRC's final rule appropriately addresses the agency's t responsibilities under federallaw and NRC regulations, and we strongly urge the
- Commission to reconsider the final rule accordingly.
The NRC action impacts all NRC licensees and results in nearly a 34 percent Lincrease in the fourth quarter payments due to the NRC. The increases are not :
only unjustified,-but the timing of the issuance of the final rule imposes an unexpected (and unbudgeted) increase in the expected fourth _ quarter payment.
Although the NRC has the statutory obligation to recover "approximately 100
' percent ofits budget authority'_' through the combination of fees for services rendered and annual fees, we believe that the final rule's arbitrary reallocation of charges is not fair, equitable or consistent with applicable law. Further, the final-rdle would have the effect of shifting the cost of resources not spent on services that could-be recovered through user fees to generic activities. The final rule provides no
- z. indication that an assessment was done of whether those generic activities were inecessary to fulfill the NRC's statutory obligation to ensure adequate protection of
. public health and safety. Further, the final rule provides no justification to.varrant the arbitrary imposition of a substantial increase in the annual fees charged to "NRC licensees for FY97. Absent such justification, the NRC should not merely shift resources to lower priority generic issues, but rather should consider reducing its Ib VIVE 51 O
e J
e Chairman Jackson July 28,1997 Page 2 resources to the extent they are not necessary for the services the NRC ne 3ds to provide.
In 1994, the Commission reported to Congress regarding the need for reconsideration of the way in which NRC licensees are required to support NRC activities for which they receive no benefit, including such activities as the agency's international programs, services provided to other federal agencies, and eversight of the Agreement State program. Three years later, in the FY97 final rule, the NRC commented that it "ramains committed to working with Congress to reduce the fee
=
burden that power reactor licensees, and other licensees, bear because they pay for regulatory activities that do not directly benefit them." There is no indication, however, that the NRC pursued legislative reform since the 1994 report to Congress.
We urge the Commission to grant the industry'n petition for reconsideration and revise the FY97 final rule accordingly. We also encourage the Commission to initiate legislation to modify the NRC's user fee statutory authority to address the inequities that currently exist. These actions will alleviate an unfair burden on licensees, are fully consistent with the NRC's fiscal responsibilities and the intent of the Congressionally mandated user fee statutory scheme, and will not have any adverse impact on the NRC's fundamental mission to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety.
As always, I encourage you to contact me if you have any questions concerning the industry's position on these important matters.
Sincerely, Oc kL Jo F. Colvin c:
Commissioner Greta J, Dieus Commissioner Nils J. Diaz Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _